35. Jahrestagung der DGfS, Universität Potsdam
AG 6: Interaction of syntactic primitives
13-15 March 2013
Dative as mixed Case: Agree meets m-case
Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Christina Sevdali
Universität Stuttgart, University of Crete, and University of Ulster
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
1. Introduction: The diversity of datives
a.
b.
c.
d.
Dative as inherent Case (e.g. Russian, Pesetsky & Torrego to appear):
Idiosyncratic; retained through the derivation and syntactically inactive, i.e.
incapable of undergoing (EPP-driven) movement to Spec,TP. 1
Dative as quirky Case (e.g. Icelandic): Idiosyncratic; retained through the
derivation but syntactically active, i.e. capable of undergoing (EPP-driven)
movement to Spec,TP.
Dative as a structural case (e.g. Ancient Greek). In certain languages, dative
arguments enter case alternations qualifying as having structural case.
Dative as a mixed case. Dative has a double status (structural or inherent),
across languages, or even within one language (Harley 1995 for Japanese, Webelhut
1995, Fanselow 2000 for German).
In this paper, we provide evidence based on Case alternations in passives and middles in favor
of view (d). Cross-linguistically, we find three types of languages:
(i) Uniform languages where dative is never structural Case, and dative-nominative
alternations never take place (e.g. Modern Greek, Russian). We will not exemplify these here.
(ii) Mixed languages where dative qualifies as structural in ditransitives and as
inherent case in monotransitives (e.g. Standard German).
(iii) Uniform languages in which alternations happen both in ditransitives and in
monotransitives (e.g. dialects of German, Ancient Greek, Japanese, Icelandic).
•
But: in languages of type (ii) and (iii) NOT all datives alternate.
Building on Rezac’s (2008) theory of opacity vs. transparency of theta-related Case to Agree,
combined with a (modified) theory of Case alternations in terms of m(orphological)-case
(Marantz 1991), we propose that
(i) dative arguments are PPs, unlike accusatives which are DPs.
1
Sometimes, the terms ‘inherent’ and ‘lexical’ dative are used interchangeably. As convincingly argued for by
Woolford (2006), however, inherent and lexical Cases are distinct and are subject to different licensing
conditions: inherent Case is thematically licensed while lexical Case is idiosyncratically determined. In this
paper, we group them together because they behave in a similar manner morpho-syntactically.
1 (ii) Being complements of P, dative DPs are often invisible to an outside probe, Voice
or T, for Agree.
(iii) Under certain conditions, however, they become visible:
• we propose that PPs become transparent when P incorporates into a higher verbal
head, thus lifting the phase-hood of P (as proposed in Anagnostopoulou & Sevdali 2012
for Ancient Greek); see den Dikken 2007, Gallego 2005, 2010, Gallego, and Uriagereka
2006, Wurmbrand, Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou 2012 for a discussion on how
movement of certain heads extends the phase to the higher projection.
• P-incorporation will be an important tool in understanding why some languages
(namely German dialects and Dutch) use special auxiliaries when datives become
nominatives in passives.
(iv) The actual distribution of m-cases (dative, accusative, nominative) in actives,
middles, and passives of languages with alternating datives is determined at the PF
component, subject to the case-realization disjunctive hierarchy proposed by Marantz (1991).
• A dative argument entering Agree qualifies as having ‘dependent case’ in the sense of
Marantz (1991) and not as having “lexically governed case”. Being dependent cases,
datives become nominative whenever the structural conditions for dependent case are
not met.
2. Dative-Nominative alternations across languages
2.1 Languages where datives become nominatives in passives in both monotransitives and
ditransitives
2.1.1 Ancient Greek2
In Ancient Greek, datives alternate in both passives of ditransitives and in monotransitives
(see Conti 1998 for extensive discussion of monotransitives; see Anagnostopoulou & Sevdali
2010, 2012 where the data presented below come from):
Monotransitives:
(1)
a.
Athe:naioi
epibouleuousin
he:min
Active
Athenians-NOM betray-3 sg-pres-act
us--DAT
‘The Athenians are betraying us’
b.
He:meis
hup’ Athe:naio:n
epibouleuometha
Passive
We-NOM
by Athenians-gen betray-1 pl-pres-pass
‘We are betrayed by the Athenians’ (Thucydides, Historia I: 82.1)
2
Interestingly, Greek underwent a transition from a system with a fully structural dative and genitive Case (in
Classical Greek) to a system with a fully inherent/lexical genitive Case (in Modern Greek). Both changes took
place in Medieval Greek (Lavidas 2007: 192), the period where the transition from a structural to an inherent
dative Case system was completed. Even though the exact stages of this transition from a structural to an
inherent Case system have not been documented in detail, one could imagine an intermediate stage where dative
is uniformly structural in some dialects (resembling Luxemburg German, see below) while it has a mixed status
in others (resembling Standard German, see below).
2
Ditransitives:
(2)
a.
All-o ti
meiz-on
hum-in
epitaks-ousin
Active
Something else-ACC bigger- ACC you-DAT order-ACT-PRES-3PL
‘They will order you to do something else bigger/greater’
b.
All-o ti
meiz-on
hum-eis
epitachthe:s-esthe Passive
Something else-ACC bigger-ACC you-NOM order-PASS-PRES-2 PL
‘You will be ordered to do something else, bigger.’
(Thucydides, Historia I: 140,5)
As pointed out by Conti (1998), not all Ancient Greek verbs selecting for dative objects form
passives showing DAT-NOM alternations. There are aspectual and thematic restrictions: (i)
stative and experiencer-subject verbs generally disallow the passive. (ii) Verbs selecting for
locative dative objects (e.g. eiko: 'distance oneself, avoid', dialegomai 'discuss') do not form
passives.
• This suggests that dative in Ancient Greek has a mixed status, sometimes being
structural and sometimes lexical/inherent.
2.1.2 Japanese
Ishizuka (2012: 82) reports that in Japanese the direct object of a substantial number of verbs
is realized not as an accusative DP but as a dative DP, and these dative DPs can be raised to
the nominative position in the passive. We illustrate this with theme datives, but Ishizuka
notes that ni-directional and kara-source Ps can also become nominatives:
Monotransitive
(3)
a.
Naomi-ga
Ken-ni
‘Naomi-nom
Ken-dat
‘Naomi kissed Ken.’
b.
Ken-ga
Naomi-ni
Ken-nom
Naomi-dat
‘Ken was kissed by Naomi
kisu(-o)
kiss-(acc)
si-ta.
do-pst
Active
kisu(-o)
kiss-(acc)
s-are-ta.
do-pass-pst
Passive
The dative goal/recipient/addressee argument of ditransitives can become nominative in
passives (see Fukuda, to appear, Ishizuka 2012 for recent discussions and references):
Ditransitives
(4) a.
Naomi-ga
Ken-ni
labuletaa-o
watasi-ta.
Active
Naomi-NOM Ken-DAT
love.letter-ACC
hand-PAST
‘Naomi handed Ken a love letter.’
b.
Ken-ga
Naomi-ni
labuletaa-o
watas-are-ta. Passive
Ken-NOM
Naomi-DAT love.letter-ACC
hand-PASS-PAST
‘Ken was handed a love letter by Naomi.’ Ishizuka (2012: 81f.)
3
As in Ancient Greek, not all datives can become nominatives; locative and benefactive ni-Ps,
and instrumental and directional de-Ps do not alternate (in both ditransitives and
monotransives):
(5)
a.
b.
Hahaoya-ga Naomi-ni
huku-o
kat-ta.
Active
mother-nom Naomi-dat
clothes-acc
buy-pst
‘Mother bought Naomi the dress.’
??Naomi-ga
hahaoya-ni
huku-o
kaw-are-ta. Passive
Naomi-nom
mother-dat
clothes-acc
buy-pass-pst
Int. ‘Naomi was bought the dress by her mother.’
• Ishizuka takes this distribution as suggesting either that i) Ps come in two different
categories, Case and full-fledged ones, and only the complement of the former can
undergo passivization or ii) it relates to the structural height of P-attachment.
2.1.3 Luxemburg German
Lenz (2011) reports that in Luxemburg German, datives can become nominatives in passives
of both monotransitives and ditransitives. In this dialect, the dative cannot be ‘promoted’ to
subject in passives formed with the auxiliary 'werden', but only with the auxiliary kréien
'kriegen' (get).
NB. In the literature, the status of this passive has been debated. Here we side with the view
that the kréien/bekommen/krijgen-construction has all the properties conventionally associated
with the passive (see Wegener 1985; Reis 1985; Fanselow 1987; Webelhuth and Ackerman
1994, Zifonun & al. 1997 for German; B&C 1994, to appear for Dutch).3
Monotransitives
(6)
De Mann kritt gedroot
The man gets threaten
Other dialects that allow the passive with monotransitives are those of the West Middle area
(Rhine-Franconian/Mosel dialects) (see Lenz 2011; Leirbukt 1997 for discussion; Lenz 2013
states that the core area of this passive is the area of West German regiolects):
(7)
Sie bekommt geholfen
She gets
helped
(Leirbukt 1997)
Ditransitives
(8 )
Hie kritt eng Planz geschenkt
He gets a plant
given
3
See Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou & Sevdali (to appear) for arguments and discussion.
4
2.2 Languages where datives become nominatives in passives of ditranstives only: Standard
German and Dutch4
Ditransitive predicates in German have four distinct realizations that differ in the morphological
marking of the direct and indirect object as well as the “unmarked linearization” of the two
objects (Lenerz 1977; Höhle 1982; Fanselow 1991, 2000; Haider 1993; Sternefeld 2006). The
four patterns are schematically represented in (9):
(9)
German argument linearization and morphological case in ditransitives
a.
NOM>DAT>ACC
c.
NOM>ACC>ACC
b.
NOM>ACC>DAT
d.
NOM>ACC>GEN
Ditransitives are divided into two major categories, regular and irregular ditransitives. In the
former, the regular case for the theme is accusative and the regular case for the goal,
possessor, benefactive/ malefactive and affected arguments is dative. The regular order
among the two objects is DAT> ACC, i.e. IO>DO. With irregular ditransitives, we find the
patterns ACC>DAT (with e.g. aussetzen ‘expose’), ACC>ACC (with the verb lehren ‘teach’)
and ACC>GEN (with e.g. anklagen ‘accuse’).
Dutch is like English in not having a morphological distinction between dative and accusative
case. Even in pronouns, such a distinction is not clear synchronically. Interestingly, though,
Dutch passives of ditransitives behave like German and not like English passives (see
Anagnostopoulou 2003 for discussion and references). This means that even though one can
never see an overt dative DP in Dutch, unlike German, it can be concluded that IO arguments
behave like dative DPs in German on the basis of their syntactic behavior.
According to Broekhuis and Cornips (B&C 1994, 2012), Standard Dutch mostly has goal
ditransitives, as in ((10); B&C's (34a); see their list of verbs in (33), and references therein for
a more complete list based on an extensive corpus research):
(10)
Jan bezorgde Marie/ haar het pakje
Jan delivered Marie/her the backage
'Jan brought Mary the package'
In German and Dutch, datives cannot become subjects of passives when the auxiliary is
werden/worden. These only permit 'direct passives', as in (13), where the DO becomes the
subject:5
4
Note that in Dutch krijgen is the only auxiliary used, while in German both bekommen and kriegen are possible
(and in some cases erhalten too). It is not clear which auxiliary is the most widely used one in German, see Lenz
(to appear). Here, we will refer to the German ditransitive passives as bekommen passives.
5
As discussed in detail in Anagnostopoulou (2003: 42-48, 215-220), in Dutch worden-passives, the higher IO
must undergo scrambling in order for the DO to move to the subject position, for locality reasons: movement of
the intervener to the scrambling site facilitates movement of the lower argument across it. Scrambling in Dutch
is employed as a strategy of obviating intervention effects, similarly to clitic doubling of the IO in Modern Greek
DO-passives.
5
(11)
(12)
(13)
* Er
wurde die Blumen
geschenkt
He-NOM was the flowers-ACC given
‘He was given the flowers’
* Hij wird het eten bezorgd (door mij)
He was the food delivered (by
me)
‘He was delivered the food by me’
a. Die Blumen
wurden ihm geschenkt
The flowers-NOM were him-DAT given
'The flowers were given to him'
b. Het eten werd hem bezorgd (door mij)
The food was him delivered (by me)
'The food was delivered to him by me'
Datives can become subjects in passives when the passive is formed with the auxiliaries
bekomme/krijgen (Dutch data from Everaert 1990: 127 and Broekhuis and Cornips 1994:
176):
(14)
Er
bekam die Blumen
geschenkt
He-NOM got
the flowers-ACC given
‘He was given the flowers’
Hij kreeg de boeken op zijn kantoor bezorgd
He got
the books at his office given
‘He got the books delivered at his office’
(15)
From this perspective then, dative in German and Dutch must be structural Case, at least in
the environments where bekommen/krijgen-passivization is possible (see Webelhuth 1995 for
discussion).
• Dutch as well as Standard German allow the krijgen/bekommen-passive with
ditransitive predicates only. Monotransitives only allow werden-passivization, where
dative objects retain their case and are not allowed to become nominative, as shown by the
contrast between (16b) and (16c) (Lenz 2011). When monotransitive verbs assign
accusative case, this becomes nominative in werden-passives:
(16)
a.
b.
c.
•
Maria half ihm.
Maria helped him-DAT
‘Maria helped him.’
Ihm
wurde geholfen.
Him-DAT
was helped
‘He was helped.’
*Er
bekam geholfen
He/him-NOM got
helped
‘He was killed.’
The above suggests that bekommen-passivization is only possible in environments
6
where dative is structural undergoing movement, and in monotransitives dative is lexical
Case.
That dative is (or can, in principle, be) structural Case in German is supported by the
following facts:
(i) As also discussed in Fanselow (2000) and Cook (2006), the bekommen-passive is possible
and acceptable for all speakers of German only for ditransitive verbs with the basic/unmarked
word order DAT > ACC, e.g. ‘schenken’ and not with verbs with the basic/unmarked word
order ACC>DAT e.g. ‘unterziehen’ (see also Czepluch 1988, Haider 1993, Molnárfi 1998,
McFadden 2004):6
(17)
(18)
a.
Der Mann
bekam ein Buch
geschenkt
The man-NOM got
a book-ACC given
‘The man was given a book’
b. * Die Operation
bekam den Patienten
unterzogen
The operation-NOM got
the patient-ACC submitted
Der Patient
wurde einer Operation unterzogen
The patient-NOM was an operation-DAT submitted
• This provides evidence that the bekommen-passive is sensitive to the distinction
between structural vs. non-structural (oblique) dative.
(ii) In the ACC>ACC frame, accusative IOs become subjects in bekommen-passives, as shown in
(18a) (Beermann 2001). This suggests that it is the higher argument with structural Case that
becomes subject in bekommen-passives. In “regular ditransitives” the highest argument bearing
structural Case is the dative IO, and accusative DOs become the subjects of werden-passives, as
in (19b):
(19)
a.
Die Schüler
bekommen das Lied
gelehrt
The students-NOM get
the song-ACC taught
‘The students are taught the song’
b. Ein Buch
wurde dem Mann
geschenkt
A book-NOM was the man-DAT given
‘A book was given to the man’
6
Note that verbs like entnehmen can surface with two word orders ACC> DAT, and DAT> ACC. Interestingly,
only the latter can form a bekommen-passive, as Cook (2006) discusses in detail.
(i)
a.
* Das Buch bekam ein Zitat entnommen
the bookNOM got a quotation removed
b.
Wenn der armer Mensch die inneren Organen entnommen bekommt
when the poor personNOM the internal organs removed gets
‘when the poor person gets their internal organs removed.’
7
Note that ACC>ACC ditransitives never allow the DO to become NOM with a werdenpassive when the IO surfaces with ACC, only when it surfaces with DAT (Florian Schäfer,
p.c.):
(20)
Das
The
Lied
song-NOM
wurde den Schülern/ *die Schüler
was the students-DAT/*ACC
gelehrt
taught
That dative can be a lexical/inherent case is supported by:
(i) the ditransitive vs. mono-transitive asymmetry in Standard German and related dialects,
and (ii) verb class restrictions. As noted by Bayer, Bader & Meng (2000), in those German
dialects which allow bekommen-passives with mono-transitive verbs (Luxemburg, German
Rhine-Franconian/ Mosel dialects) there are certain verbs with a single dative object that can
form a bekommen-passive and others that cannot:
(21)
a.
b.
(22)
a.
b.
Ich
half
I
helped
Der Student the student-NOM
Ich
zürnte
I
was-mad-at
*Der Student
the student-NOM
dem Studenten
the student-DAT
bekam geholfen got
helped
dem Studenten
the student-DAT
bekam gezürnt
got
been-mad-at
Dative verbs which permit the bekommen passive are beipflichten (‘agree’) and
widersprechen (‘object-to’); verbs which don’t are ausweichen (‘avoid’), dienen (‘serve’),
vertrauen (‘trust’), unterliegen (‘succumb’) and certainly many more.
• We take this as evidence that dative objects bear structural Case with the predicates
allowing bekommen-passives and lexical Case with the predicates resisting bekommenpassives.
• For Germanic dialects in general, the question arises why it is a special auxiliary that
is used when datives become nominatives in passives.
2.3 Languages where datives become nominatives in middles: Icelandic
Icelandic presents a different pattern of a dative-nominative alternation:
(23)
a.
b.
Dative alternations never happen in passives.7 They occur in
-st middles (and certain anticausatives and adjectival passives).
The dative 'absorbed' in ditransitives is the case of the DO, never
of the IO.
7
As Zaenen & Maling (1990: 145f.) note, the same applies to idiosyncratic accusative case which is never
absorbed in passives.
8
Difference a: Middles. A systematic DAT-NOM alternation is found with middle Voice verbs
ending in –st, as shown in (24b). These verbs often have an anticausative meaning, and are
referred to as ‘middle’ in the literature on Icelandic. 8
(24) a.
Ég
týndi úrinu
I-nom lost
the watch-DAT
‘I lost the watch’
b.
Úrið
týndi-st
The watch-NOM
lost-MIDDLE
‘The watch got lost’
An important difference between the middle and the periphrastic passive in Icelandic is that
the former does not imply agency while the latter does (see Sigurðsson 1989 for detailed
discussion). Middles do not license by-phrases (25c), while periphrastic passives do (25b)
(Sigurðsson 1989: 268; Svenonius 2006):
(25)
a.
b.
c.
Lögreglan
drap hundinn
The police-NOM
killed the dog-ACC
‘The police killed the dog’
Hundurinn
var
drepinn
The dog-NOM
was killed
‘The dog was killed by the police’
Hundurinn
drapst
The dog-NOM
killed-MIDDLE
‘The dog got killed’
(af lögreglunni)
by the police
(*af lögreglunni)
by the police
Difference b: Sigurðsson (1989) points out that in ditransitives only direct object theme
datives alternate. The dative case of benefactive/goal indirect objects does not alternate
(Jónsson 2000 provides a list of some verbs that can do this). This holds for the -st verbs,
where dative indirect objects (IOs) stay dative, even under -st. For ditransitive verbs that take
two dative objects, only the DO dative becomes nominative, the IO remains dative (26-27):
(26) a.
Jón
gaf mér
þetta tækifæri.
John-N gave me-DAT
this opportunity-ACC
´John gave me this opportunity.´ (Sigurðsson 1989:270)
8 Dative alternates in the adjectival/stative passive, which, once again, is incompatible with agentivity in
Icelandic. In the stative passive in (i), which does not license a by-phrase, the DO surfaces with nominative.
Note that (i) is clearly an adjectival passive corresponding to English adjectival passives with un-prefixation
(Wasow 1977; Levin & Rappaport 1986 and much subsequent literature):
(i)
a.
Hann
var
boðinn
(*af Maríu)
He-NOM
was
invited-m.sg.NOM
by Mary
‘He was invited’
b.
Hann
var
óboðinn
(*af Maríu)
He-NOM
was
uninvited-m.sg.NOM
by Mary
‘He was uninvited’
9
b.
(27)
a.
b.
Mér
gaf-st
þetta tækifæri (*viljandi).
me-DAT
gave-MIDDLE
thisopportunity-NOM (*willingly)
´I happened to get this opportunity.´(Sigurðsson 1989:270)
þeir
úthlutuðu okkur velli
til 12:00
they-NOM allocated us-DAT field-DAT until 12:00
'They allocated a field to us until 12:00'
Okkur úthlutaðist völlur til 12:00
us-DAT allocated-st field-NOM until 12:00
We got allocated a field until 12:00
Sigurðsson & Wood (2012)
(28) Summary: dative-nominative alternations
Ancient Greek
Japanese
Standard German
Lux. German
Dutch
Icelandic
DAT-NOM in
monotransitives
only
No
No
No
No
unclear9
No
DAT-NOM in Only some DAT
ditransitives
alternate
only
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
3. TOWARDS AN ANALYSIS
3.1 What needs to be explained
•
•
•
•
•
Fact 1: Dative Case is in principle flexible. In some languages it doesn’t alternate. In
other languages it does.
Fact 2: Not all datives alternate.
Fact 3: The ditransitive only vs. monotransitive & ditransitive difference. Alternating
dative is in some languages/dialects limited to ditransitives while in other
languages/dialects it also occurs in monotransitives. We have found no language
where dative-nominative alternations occur in monotransitives and not in
ditransitives.
Fact 4: The passive vs. middle asymmetry.
Fact 5: The auxiliary difference. In (some) passives (at least in German and Dutch),
different auxiliaries are chosen depending on which IO argument alternates.
3.2 Dative Case: opaque or transparent to Agree
There are different types of datives:
Following Rezac 2008, dative DPs (both lexical and inherent datives in Woolford’s 2006
9
Given that Dutch lacks morphological dative case, it seems unclear whether it has any monotransitive verbs
assigning dative to their single object. Presumably not. But see, Broekhuis & Cornips (1994).
10
terms; Rezac calls both “theta-related Cases”) are contained within PPs.
PPs are phases (Abels 2003, McGinnis 2001) and, therefore, the φ-features of the containing
DPs are not visible for Αgree to a probe outside the PP, Voice or T. As a result, Opacity
obtains (cf. Pesetsky 2010, p. 7 for a related recent approach to arguments bearing dative Case
as “…bearing an affix of category P”, i.e. as being PPs).
•
•
•
(29)
This is the analysis we will assume for inherent as well as lexical datives, i.e. the ones
that do not alternate with nominatives, namely that they are opaque PPs not entering
Agree (see Rezac 2008 and Pesetsky 2010 for more discussion of the categorial status
of datives as PPs and references).
By contrast, accusatives are DPs and are always visible for Agree because DPs are
transparent.
Agree transparency: dative DPs can be visible for Agree in certain cases:10
(Rezac’s (20))
a.
DPs with structural Case are just DPs, with their interpretable φ-features on
D(P).
b.
DPs with theta-related Case are contained within PPs, where P is a phase head.
c.
The P-head of a PP is susceptible to variation in the presence and the content
of a φ-probe
In addition to (c) we propose that PPs can become transparent of P incorporates into a higher
head (Voice-v; Anagnostopoulou & Sevdali 2012; cf. Taraldsen 2010).
It is the process of preposition incorporation itself that makes the PPs in question transparent.
If PPs are phases, then the phase-lifting effect of P incorporation follows from the hypothesis
that movement of certain phase heads extends the phase to the higher projection (den Dikken
2007, Gallego 2005, 2010, Gallego, and Uriagereka 2006, Wurmbrand, Alexiadou &
Anagnostopoulou 2012), are formed by preposition incorporation which results in a
configuration where the complex verb has a PP complement headed by the trace of the
incorporated preposition, exactly as was proposed by Baker (1988 ch. 5) for applicative
constructions in Bantu languages.
Support for this comes from Ancient Greek, where monotransitive and ditransitive complex
verbs formed with prepositions assigning dative case such as en-, sun-, epi-, para-, hupo- and
the adverb omou- inherit from the prepositions their dative assigning capacity, see the data in
10
In order to account for this variability, Rezac proposes that P may itself have a φ-probe which enters Agree
with its DP complement. The result of this P-DP φ-Agree relationship is visible Agree from the outside. He
proposes that a φ-probe on P entering Agree with the DP selected by P transmits the φ-features of this DP
outside the opaque PP domain. As far as we can tell, Rezac (2008) is not explicit on how exactly this
transmission of φ-features takes place as a result of P-DP Agree. In order for this to work, one has to assume that
the φ-probe on P is valued by the containing DP and remains active for further Agree with a higher probe, Voice
or T. It must be the case then that the φ-features on P are valued but not deleted.
11
(1) and (2) above which instantiate the phenomenon with the incorporated preposition epi .
In actives, T enters Agree with the external argument (EA in (30) below) and Voice Agrees
with the internal argument. In passives, the φ features on passive Voice are inactive, and the
object enters Agree with T. As a result, the Object DP/ PP carries Nom.
(30)
a.
b.
[TP [uφ] [VoiceP EA [iφ] [Voice [uφ] [RootP DP/PP[iφ] ]]]]
[TP [uφ] [VoiceP [RootP DP/PP[iφ] ]]]
active
passive
This accounts for the fact that dative Case is in principle flexible (sometimes entering
alternations and sometimes not), unlike Accusative which alternates always.
Rezac proposes that variation in the content of a φ-probe can additionally derive the
difference between quirky datives and alternating datives:
(31)
Quirky vs. structural datives: variation in the content of the φ-probe
-Quirky datives enter incomplete Agree (along the lines proposed by
Anagnostopoulou 2003, 2005a for PCC effects; see also Rezac 2008
and others).
-Alternating datives enter complete Agree (behaving exactly like alternating
Accusatives).
3.3 Case-realization as a matter of PF: transparent dative as dependent case
Morphological case realization is determined at PF. Marantz (1991) argues that the
distribution of morphological case is determined at PF, subject to the case realization
hierarchy in (32):
(32)
case realization disjunctive hierarchy: i) lexically governed case, ii) "dependent" case
(accusative and ergative), iii) unmarked case (environment-sensitive), iv) default case
The more specific a case is, it is assigned first taking precedence over the cases lower in the
hierarchy. In this system, structural accusative Case is “dependent case” subject to the
definition in (33):
(33) Dependent case is assigned by V+I to a position governed by V+I when a
distinct position governed by V+I is:
a. not "marked" (not part of a chain governed by a lexical case determiner)
b. distinct from the chain being assigned dependent case
Dependent case assigned up to subject:
Dependent case assigned down to object:
ergative
accusative
According to (33), dependent accusative is assigned “downwards” to a DP in opposition to a
higher DP not bearing lexically governed case (what we called here “inherent” or “lexical”,
12
but also “quirky”).
Modification of Marantz (1991): We propose to link this parameter to the Agree condition
(30), which could be seen as a formal licensing condition (like EPP in Marantz’s 1991 paper
and structural case in Harley’s MCP) appropriately interpreted at PF.
(34)
a. A PP that is transparent to Agree is not and cannot be lexically governed case as it
enters a checking relation with a functional head, and will therefore receive a case
determined lower in the hierarchy (dependent or environment sensitive or default).11
b. On the other hand, a PP that is opaque to Agree bears lexically governed case. This
modification leads to a definition along the following lines:
(35)
Dependent case is assigned by V+I to a position governed by V+I when a
distinct position governed by V+I is:
a. not "marked" (not part of a chain governed by a lexical case determiner)
b. distinct from the chain being assigned dependent case
Dependent case assigned up to subject:
Dependent case assigned down to object:
(e.g. accusative, dative, genitive...)
ergative
any case realized on an argument entering Agree
The realization of dependent case will be based on:
(a) the DP vs. PP distinction (DP= accusative vs. PP = dative/genitive) and (b) more specific
information provided by the zero Ps and the selecting v/Vs (in order to e.g. distinguish dative
from genitive realization in languages like Ancient Greek where both dative and genitive
Cases alternate qualifying as dependent).
•
Ditransitives in languages where both cases, dative and accusative, alternate
(Japanese, Ancient Greek, German bekommen and werden passives and their Dutch
counterparts):
Voice enters Agree with both the IO and DO either under Multiple Agree (as independently
proposed by Anagnostopoulou 2003, Anagnostopoulou 2005a and Nevins 2007, 2011 in order
to account for Person Case Constraint (PCC) effects in ditransitives; cf. Baker 2011 who also
proposes that Voice can agree with both arguments) or because it has two φ-probes. The two
arguments are assigned dependent case in opposition to a higher argument not bearing lexical
case (DAT is assigned in opposition to the higher EA, and ACC in opposition to the higher
DAT). In passives, Voice is defective (and non-phasal) in not introducing an EA and not
containing a φ probe. The two arguments enter Agree with T.12
11
Note that in the calculation of dependent case assignment at PF, quirky case qualifies as “lexically governed”
case, despite entering partial Agree, as proposed in (31). This means that only dative and genitive PPs entering
complete Agree will qualify as dependent cases in (35).
12
Note that in order to deal with Agree in passives, the simplest solution would be to assume Multiple Agree
13
(36)
a.
b.
[TP [uφ] [VoiceP EA [iφ] [Voice [uφ] [ApplP IO[iφ] [ DO [iφ] ]]]]]
[TP [uφ] [VoiceP [ApplP IO[iφ] [ DO [iφ] ]]]]
active
passive
In passives, (i) one of the two dependent cases (accusative or dative) cannot be assigned in
opposition to a higher position and, therefore, the argument that would bear it surfaces with
environment sensitive nominative. (ii) The other argument bears the dependent case (dative/
genitive or accusative) that also bears in the corresponding active, in opposition to the 'higher'
nominative argument (the derived subject).
•
Locality determines which argument will surface as nominative:
The first dependent case cannot be assigned, and the higher argument surfaces with
nominative.
The second/lower argument bears dependent case in opposition to the higher ('derived')
nominative. Assuming that the underlying order of arguments is IO>DO, this makes
NOM>ACC passives of ditransitives to be the simple case: German bekommen-passives,
Dutch krijgen-passives, Ancient Greek passives where DAT becomes nominative and ACC is
retained, Japanese passives where DAT becomes NOM and ACC is retained.
NOM>DAT passives of ditransitives are more difficult to handle: something extra needs to
be stated for German and Dutch werden-passives, Ancient Greek passives where ACC
becomes nominative and DAT is retained, Japanese passives where ACC becomes NOM and
DAT is retained. This is not a problem specific to the present account, however. It is a more
general problem for all theories dealing with locality in languages with so called “symmetric
passives”.13
3.4 Accounting for the variation
3.4.1 The ditransitive vs. monotransitive asymmetry
Languages where dative alternates in both monotransitives and ditransitives are the canonical
case14 for the theory outlined in the preceding sections (if a language has transparent datives
the null hypothesis would be that it has them in both contexts).
On the other hand, languages with the monotransitive-ditransitive asymmetry are more
throughout, in T and Voice, and not postulate two φ-probes on Voice.
Ura (1996); McGinnis (1998); Anagnostopoulou (2003, 2005b); Doggett (2004); Citko (2008); Haddican
(2010), among others, for some proposals. As also mentioned in fn.5, Anagnostopoulou (2003: 215-220)
building on an observation by den Dikken (1995: 207-208) specifically appeals to scrambling of the intervening
IO, in order to account for the grammaticality of worden-passives in Dutch; other escape strategies are also
discussed in the literature cited here and could apply, in principle.
14
In terms of Harley's (1995) Mechanical Case Parameter, the canonincal case would be a language that has a
monotransitive vs. ditransitive asymmetry (like Standard German), see Anagnostopoulou & Sevdali (2012) for
discussion.
14
13 See
problematic. For languages having this asymmetry it would have to be stipulated that dative
PP arguments are opaque to Agree in monotransitives (i.e. they lack P-incorporation) and
transparent to Agree (i.e. they have P-incorporation) in ditransitives. The same has to be
assumed for these datives that cannot undergo passivization in e.g. ditransitives in Germanic
and Japanese.
In the set of languages we looked, we did not find a language that has a DAT-NOM
alternation in monotranstives, but not in ditransitives; hence we suspect that (37) is an
implicational universal:
(37)
If a language has a DAT-NOM alternation in monotransitives, it also has it in
ditransitives (but not vice-versa).
3.4.2 Datives in passives vs. middles
Turning to Icelandic, following Svenonius (2006) and Wood (2012), we adopt the view that
the distribution of direct object case (DAT or ACC) is partially sensitive to event structure in
this language.
As in Wood, we propose to tie direct object datives to some feature or property of a special
type of the little v head in (38), vDAT, given that this head is responsible for event semantics
(assuming the basic architecture of verbs argued for in Alexiadou, Anagnostopoulou &
Schäfer (2006), Marantz (2005) and others according to which, verbs are syntactically
decomposed into a Voice, a v and a Root component). From this perspective, alternating
dative in Icelandic (i.e. the dative assigned to themes of motion) is assigned by a head lower
than Voice and, therefore, is not affected when passive Voice is present. 15
(38)
[Voice [v [ Root ]]]
Following Schäfer (2008), Sigurðsson (2009a) and Wood (2012), we take –st in Icelandic
middles to be an exponent of an expletive subject in Voice. This explains why there is never
an implicit external argument in these constructions. We will also assume that that there the
impoverishment rule operative at PF in Icelandic proposed in Wood (2012) which deletes the
feature leading to dative case assignment at PF in the context of expletive Voice:
(39)
vDAT → v / [VoiceP –st Voice ___
This rule is most immediately compatible with post-syntactic m-case approaches towards
Case distribution. When dative case cannot be assigned to direct objects due to the
impoverishment rule in (39), then nominative is employed as the ‘Elsewhere’ case assigned
when nothing else is available to assign case. The rule in (39) will not have any effect on
dative assigned by the applicative head in ditransitives (and some monotransitives) or on
15
See Svenonius (2006) who argues that dative case in Icelandic is assigned structurally by a combination of
v(our Voice) and a VD (our v). cf. also Schäfer (2008: 290f.) who argues that dative case is licensed by
VoiceDAT.
15
dative assigned by P.
Turning, finally, to Icelandic ditransitives, we saw that, crucially, DAT-NOM alternations
never happen with IOs. This is explained as follows.16 IO dative is quirky, i.e. partially
transparent entering incomplete Agree (see Anagnostopoulou 2003 2005a; Rezac 2008 and
footnote 22 above), and is always preserved (see Wood 2010 for a recent discussion).
3.4.3 The auxiliary issue
In at least in German and Dutch, different auxiliaries are chosen depending on which Case
alternates (dative or accusative).
We would like to propose that bekommen/krijgen is simply the 'lexicalization' of a Voice+v+
P complex head, resulting from the incorporation of P into Voice-v. Here we assume an
analysis of auxiliary decomposition in the spirit of Kayne (1933), and Taraldsen (2010) for
get-passives in Norwegian.17
(40)
[VoiceP [vP [ApplP PP DAT-goal Appl DPACC-theme ]]]
We assume that IO dative goals are specifiers of an applicative head (high or low), similarly
to IO accusative goals in languages like English (see, in particular, Anagnostopoulou 2005 for
arguments that benefactive and goal PPs can be specifiers of vAPPL). When P does not
incorporate into Voice-v, the dative is opaque. When P incorporates into Voice-v the dative
becomes transparent. See the structure in (36) above. In German and Dutch,
bekommen/krijgen is the overt lexicalization of Voice+v+P, in the spirit of Taraldsen (2010).18
•
•
When P incorporates into Voice-v, the complex head is spelled out as
bekommen/krijgen. When no incorporation takes place, the head is spelled out as
werden.
ACC-ACC predicates that also allow passivization with bekommen, involve ACC
introduced by P.
16
In terms of EPP-driven movement in passives, Icelandic is order preserving: the higher dative becomes the
subject and the lower nominative theme is an object (see Holmberg & Platzack 1995; Collins & Thráinsson 1996
among others for a discussion of EPP driven movement in Icelandic passives from the point of view of locality.
17
Taraldsen argues that the auxiliary få 'get' in Norwegian 'get-passives' lexicalizes a complex head involving
Init (corresponding to our Voice) and a K head:
(i)
[Init ..[ Appl...[ProcP ]]]
The complex head emerges from movement of an applicative oblique KP over Init and then to the nominative
position leaving a stranded K. This head Appl makes the argument it introduces the agent of the event denoted
by ProcP, corresponding to high applicatives in Pylkkänen (2002).
18
In Ancient Greek and Japanese there is no overt lexicalization on an auxiliary; in Ancient Greek, though, there
can be overt P-incorporation of prepositions assigning dative in monotransitives and ditransitives
(Anagnostopoulou & Sevdali 2012).
16
4. Summary
•
•
We provided evidence in favor of the view that dative is a mixed Case.
We proposed that this picture emerges as datives while generally opaque to Agree can
under certain conditions (e.g. P-incorporation) become transparent to Agree.
References
Abels, K. 2003. Successive Cyclicity, Anti-locality, and Adposition Stranding. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Connecticut.
Adams, D. Q. 1971. Passives and problems in Classical Greek and Modern English. Working
papers in Linguistics, Ohio State University 10: 1-7.
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou & F. Schäfer. 2006. Properties of anticausatives crosslinguistically. In M. Fascarelli (ed.) Phases of interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
187-212.
Alexiadou, A., E. Anagnostopoulou & C. Sevdali. 2011. Patterns of Dative-Nominative
Alternations. To appear in the Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 41 (University
of Pennsylvania). MA:GLSA.
Anagnostopoulou, E. 1999. On Experiencers. In In A. Alexiadou, G. Horrocks, and M.
Stavrou (Eds.) Studies in Greek Syntax 67-93. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.67-93.
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2001. Two classes of double object verbs: the role of zero-morphology.
In van Oostendorp, Marc & Elena Anagnostopoulou (Eds.) Progress in Grammar. Articles
at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg 1-27.
Roquade, Amsterdam/Utrecht/Delft. Meertens Institute Electronic Publications in
Linguistics (MIEPiL).
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter.
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2005a. Strong and Weak Person Restrictions: A feature checking
analysis. In Lorie Heggie and Francisco Ordoñez (Eds.) Clitic and Affix Combinations 199235.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Anagnostopoulou, E. 2005b. Holmberg’s Generalization and Cyclic Linearization: Remarks
on Fox and Pesetsky”. Theoretical Lingusitics 31.95-110
Anagnostopoulou, E. & C. Sevdali. 2010. Remarks on passivization, dative and Voice in
Ancient Greek. Syntax Workshop, University of Ulster, February 2010.
Anagnostopoulou, E. & C. Sevdali. 2012. Case alternations in Ancient Greek passives and the
typology of Case. Ms. Universities of Crete and Ulster.
Anderson, S. 1990. The grammar of Icelandic verbs in -st. In A. Zaenen & J. Maling (eds.)
Modern Icelandic Syntax 273-273. Academic Press.
Andrews, Avery. 1982. The representation of case in modern Icelandic. In Joan Bresnan, ed.
The
mental representation of grammatical relations. 426-503. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Arad, M. 1998. VP-Structure and the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, PhD thesis, University
College London.
Bader, M. & J. Häussler. 2010. Grammaticality and Usage. Ms. University of Konstanz.
Bader, M. & K. Häussler. to appear. How much bekommen is there in the German bekommen
passive. In A. Alexiadou & F. Schäfer (eds.) Non-canonical passives. John Benjamins.
Baker, M. 1988 Incorporation: a Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. Chicago,
Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Baker, M. 2011. When agreement is for number and gender but not person. NLLT 29: 875915.
Bayer, J., M. Bader & M. Meng. 2000. Morphological underspecification meets oblique Case:
syntactic and processing effects in German. Ms. University of Konstanz.
Beermann, D: 2001. Verb semantics and ditransitivity. In Progress in Grammar M. van
Oostendorp & E. Anagnostopoulou (eds.). electronic book.
Belletti, A. & L. Rizzi. 1988. Psych-Verbs and Theta-Theory. Natural Language and
17
Linguistic Theory 6, 293-352.
Broekhuis, H. & L. Cornips 1994. Undative constructions. Linguistics 32: 173-189
Broekhuis, H. & L. Cornips. 2013. The verb krijgen ‘to get’ as an undative verb. In
Linguistics 50.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Citko, Barbara. 2008. A (New) Look at Symmetric and Asymmetric Passives, NELS
Handout.
Conti, L. J. 1998. Zum Passiv von griechischen Verben mit Genitiv bzw. Dativ als zweitem
Komplement. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 58: 13-50.
Collins, C., and H. Thrainsson. 1996. VP-Internal Structure and Object Shift in Icelandic.
Linguistic Inquiry 27(3): 391-444.
Cook, P. 2006. The datives that aren't born equal: beneficiaries and the dative passive. In
Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds.), Datives and other cases, 141184. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Czepluch, H. 1988. Kasusmorphologie und Kasusrelationen. Linguistische Berichte 116. 275310.
Dikken, M. den. 1995. Particles: on the Syntax of Verb-particle, Triadic and Causative
constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dikken, Marcel den. 2007. Phase Extension: Contours of a Theory of the Role of Head
Movement in Phrasal Extraction. Theoretical Linguistics 33.1:1-41.
Doggett, Teal Bissell. 2004. All things being unequal: Locality in Movement. PhD
Dissertation, MIT.
Embick, D., 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35
(3), 355-392.
Everaert, M. 1990. NP-movement ‘across’ secondary objects. In J. Mascaró and M. Nespor
(eds.), Grammar in Progress. Glow Essays for Henk van Riemsdijk, 126-136. Dordrecht:
Foris Publications.
Fanselow, G. 1987. Konfigurationalität. Tübingen, Narr.
Fanselow, G. 1991. Minimale Syntax. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 32.
Fanselow, G. 2000. Optimal Exceptions In: B. Stiebels, D. Wunderlich (eds.), The Lexicon in
Focus. Berlin, Ackademie Verlag, 173-209.
Feldman, H. 1978. Passivizing on datives in Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 9: 499-502.
Fischer, S. 2008. Word-order change as a source of grammaticalisation: a comparative
historical study of quirky subjects and stylistic fronting in Romance (Catalan, French,
Spanish) and Germanic (English, Icelandic). Habilitationsschrift, Universität Stuttgart.
Fukuda, S. to appear. Object case and event type: Accusative-dative object case alternation in
Japanese. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society
(BLS33).
Gallego, Ángel. 2005. Phase sliding. Ms., University of Barcelona and University of
Maryland.
Gallego, Ángel. 2010. Phase theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gallego, Ángel, and Juan Uriagereka. 2006. Sub-extraction from subjects. Ms., University of
Barcelona and University of Maryland.
Haddican, W. 2010. “Theme-goal ditransitives and theme passives in British English
dialects”. Lingua 120. 2424-2443.
Haider, H. 1984. Mona Lisa lächelt stumm - Über das sogenannte deutsche
‘Rezipientenpassiv’. Linguistische Berichte 89: 32-42.
Haider, H. 1985. The Case of German. In J. Toman (ed.), Studies in German Grammar, 65101. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Haider, H. 1993. Deutsche Syntax generativ. Tübingen: Gunther Narr Verlag.
Haider, H. 2001. Heads and selection. In: N. Corver, H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Semi-lexical
categories: the function of content words and the content of function words. Mouton de
Gruyter, Berlin, 67-96.
Harley, H. 1995. Subjects, Events and Licensing, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Hoffman, M. C. 1991. The Syntax of Argument-Structure-Changing Morphology. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
18
Höhle, T. 1982. Explikationen für normale Betonung und normale Wortstellung. In W.
Abraham (ed.) Satzglieder im Deutscehn, 75-153. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.
Holmberg, A. & C. Platzack. 1995. The role of inflection in Scandinavian syntax. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Ishizuka, T. 2012. The passive in Japanese. John Benjamins.
Jónsson, J. 2000. Case and double objects in Icelandic. University of Leeds Working Papers
in Linguistics.
Kracht, M. 2002. On the semantics of locatives. Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 157 - 232.
Kratzer, A. 1996. Severing the External Argument from its Verb. Phrase Structure and the
Lexicon. J. Rooryck and L. Zaring. Dordrecht, Kluwer: 109- 137.
Larson, R. K. 1988 On the Double Object Construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 335 – 392.
Lavidas, N. 2007. Μεταβολές στη µεταβατικότητα του ρήµατος της Ελληνικής. [Changes in
transitivity of the Greek verb]. PhD dissertation: University of Athens.
Leirbukt, O., 1997. Untersuchungen zum 'bekommen'-Passiv im heutigen Deutsch. Niemeyer,
Tübingen.
Lenerz, J. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.
Lenz, A. 2009. On the perspectivization of a recipient role - crosslinguistic results from a
speech production experiment. In Marc Fryd (ed.), Passive in Germanic languages.
Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 125-144.
Lenz, A. 2011. Zum kréien-Passiv und seinen "Konkurrenten" im schriftlichen und
mündlichen Luxemburgischen. In: Gilles, Peter / Wagner, Melanie (ed.): Aktuelle
Forschungen zur linguistischen Luxemburgistik (Jahrbuch Mikroglottika).
Lenz, A. 2013. Three competing auxiliaries of a non-canonical passive. On the German getpassive and its auxiliaries. In A. Alexiadou & F. Schäfer (eds.) Non-canonical passives.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry 17:
623-661.
Maling, J. 2002. Verbs with dative objects in Icelandic, Islenskt mal 24: 31-105.
Marantz, A. 1991. 'Case and Licensing'. Proceedings of Escol, 234-253.
Marantz, A. 2005. Handout: Objects out of the lexicon: objects as event, presented at the
University of Vienna.
Masullo, P.J. 1993. Two Types of Quirky Subjects: Spanish vs. Icelandic. Proceedings of
NELS 23: 303-317.
McGinnis, M. 1998. Locality in A-Movement. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cambridge MA: MIT.
McGinnis, M. 2001.Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation
Yearbook 1: 105-146.
McFadden, T., 2004. The Position of Morphological Case in the Derivation: a study on the
syntax-morphology interface. Ph.D. thesis. University of Pennsylvania.
Miyagawa, S. 1997. Against optional scrambling. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 1-25.
Molnárfi, L., 1998. Kasusstrukturalität und struktureller Kasus - zur Lage des Dativs im
heutigen Deutsch. Linguistische Berichte 176, 535-580.
Moltmann, F 1990. Scrambling in German and the Specificity Effect. Ms. MIT.
Müller, G. 1995. A-bar Syntax. A Study in Movement Types. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Müller, G. 2001. Harmonic Alignment and the Hierarchy of Pronouns in German. In H.
Simon and H. Wiese (eds.) Pronouns – Grammar and Representation 205-232. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Müller, S. 2002. Complex predicates: verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and
particle cerbs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Nevins, A. 2007. The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case
effects. NLLT 25 : 273-313.
Nevins, A. 2011. Multiple agree with clitics : person complementarity vs. Omnivorous
number. NLLT 29 : 939-971.
Pesetsky. D. 2010. Russian case morphology and the syntactic categories. Ms. MIT.
Pesetsky, D. & E. Torrego. To appear. Pedagogical chapter on Case Theory. Draft of a
chapter for the Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Minimalism.
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
19
Pylkkänen, L. 2002. Introducing Arguments. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
Ramchand, G. 2008. Verbs and the lexicon: a first phase syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Rezac, M. 2008. Phi-Agree and Theta-Related Case. In D. Harbour, D. Adger and S. Bejar
(Eds.) Phi Theory. Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces. Oxford: OUP, 83-130.
Reis, M. 1985. Mona Lisa kriegt zuviel. Linguistische Berichte 96: 140-155.
Schäfer, F. 2008. The syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External arguments in change-of-state
contexts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 1989. Verbal syntax and case in Icelandic. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Lund.
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2009a. On the New Passive. Ms. Lund University (to appear in Syntax).
Sigurðsson, H. Á. 2009b. The no Case generalization. In A. Alexiadou & al. (eds.) Advances
in Comparative Germanic Syntax. John Benjamins, 249-280.
Sigurðsson, E.F. & J. Wood. 2012. Case alternations in Icelandic get-passives. Ms. Universty
of Iceland and NYU.
Sternefeld, W. 2006. Syntax, Band II. Stauffenberg Verlag.
Svenonius, P. 2002. Icelandic case and the structure of events. Journal of Comparative
Germanic Linguistics 5: 197–225.
Svenonius, P. 2005. Case alternations in Icelandic Passives. Manuscript: University of
Trømso.
Taraldsen, T. 2010. Unintetionality out of Control. In Argument Structure and Syntactic
Relations: A cross-linguistic perspective, Duguine, Maia, Susana Huidobro and Nerea
Madariaga (eds.), 283–302.
Thrainsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ura, H. 1996. Multiple Feature-Checking: A Theory of Grammatical Function Splitting.
Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
Vogel, R. & M. Steinbach. 1998. The Dative - An Oblique Case. Linguistische Berichte 173,
65-90.
Wasow, T. 1977. Transformations and the Lexicon. P. W. Culicover, T.Wasow & J. Bresnan
(eds.) Formal Syntax, 327-360. New York: Academic Press.
Webelhuth, G. 1995. X-bar Theory and Case Theory. In: Gert Webelhuth (ed.) Government &
Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, 15-95. Oxford/ Cambridge Mass: Basil
Blackwell Publishers.
Webelhuth, G. & F. Ackerman. 1994. German Idioms: An Empirical Approach. Studies in the
Linguistic Sciences 24: 455-472.
Wegener, H. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Narr, Tübingen.
Wood, J. 2010. Case marking and transitivity alternations. Qualifying paper, NYU.
Woolford, E. 2006. Lexical Case, Inherent Case, and Argument Structure. Linguistic Inquiry
37. 1: 111-130.
Yip, M., J. Maling, & R. Jackendoff. 1987. Case in Tiers. Language 63: 217-250.
Zaenen, A. & J. Maling. 1990. Unaccusative, passive and quirky case. In A. Zaenen & J.
Maling (eds.) Modern Icelandic Syntax, 137-152. Academic Pres.
Zaenen, A., J. Maling & H. Thráinsson. 1985. Case and Grammatical Functions: The
Icelandic Passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 441-483.
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L. & B. Strecker 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 Bände,
XXIX/2569 S. - Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
Wurmbrand, S, A. Alexiadou & E. Anagnostopoulou. 2012. Disappearing phases: evidence
from raising constructions cross-linguistically. Paper presented at SinfonIJA5, Vienna
September 2012.
20